RFC Errata
Found 3 records.
Status: Held for Document Update (2)
RFC 4671, "RADIUS Accounting Server MIB for IPv6", August 2006
Source of RFC: radext (sec)
Errata ID: 881
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-06
Held for Document Update by: Dan Romascanu
Section 7 says:
[[DESCRIPTION clause of the radiusAuthServResetTime OBJECT-TYPE declaration]] "If the server has a persistent state (e.g., a process) and supports a 'reset' operation (e.g., can be told to re-read configuration files), this value will be the time elapsed (in hundredths of a second) since the server was 'reset.' For software that does not have persistence or does not support a 'reset' operation, this value will be zero."
It should say:
"If the server has a persistent state (e.g., a process) and supports a 'reset' operation (e.g., can be told to re-read configuration files), this value will be the time elapsed (in hundredths of a second) since the server was 'reset'. For software that does not have persistence or does not support a 'reset' operation, this value will be zero."
Notes:
This does not conform to the 'rational quoting' style required
by the RFC authoring guidelines.
from pending
Errata ID: 882
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-06
Held for Document Update by: Dan Romascanu
Section 7 says:
hundredths of a second
It should say:
centiseconds
Notes:
Why not use the common ISO-standard unit-multiple name, "centiseconds" (abbreviation: "cs"), instead of the long-winded "hundredths of a second" ?
This applies to the DESCRIPTION clauses of
- radiusAccServUpTime (RFC 4671, page 7),
- radiusAccServResetTime (RFC 4671, page 7),
from pending
Status: Rejected (1)
RFC 4671, "RADIUS Accounting Server MIB for IPv6", August 2006
Source of RFC: radext (sec)
Errata ID: 879
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-06
Rejected by: Dan Romascanu
Date Rejected: 2009-09-03
misleading RFC title, including abuse of defined terms (for RFCs 4668 - 4671) IMHO, the RFC titles, "RADIUS ... MIB for IPv6" are misleading. In fact, the new RFCs extend the RADIUS MIB modules to cover IPv6, but they are not IPv6 specific! Perhaps, better wording would have been "... for IPv4 and IPv6". Furthermore, a very 'popular' clash of terms shines up here. As specified in RFC 3410 and Part 1 of STD 62, RFC 3411, and re-stated in the boilerplate Section 3, "The Internet-Standard Management Framework", of all four RFCs, there's just one single Management Information Base (MIB) comprised of various "MIB modules". Thus, throughout the titles and the text bodies of the RFCs, the proper term, "RADIUS ... MIB module" should be used instead of the rather sluggish "RADIUS ... MIB".
Notes:
from pending
--VERIFIER NOTES--
no title change needed - ipv6 covers also previous ipv4 support